Appeal No. 2005-2695
Application No. 10/280,926
case. Since we find that the examiner has identified those portions of the claimed
invention which are not disclosed in the written disclosure and explained what is lacking
in the written description, we find that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of a lack of written description. From our study of the specification and appellants’
arguments, we agree with the examiner’s finding and find that appellants have not
shown error therein or adequately rebutted the prima facie case of a lack of written
description by showing that the claimed invention is disclosed in the written description.
Additionally, we add that from our study of the specification and appellants’
arguments it is inescapable that the instant specification is overly concise and that the
specification does not contain “a written description of the invention, and of the manner
and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and use the same.” (35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph.) We find
that the written description is overly “concise,” and that the terms of the description are
not “clear,” not “full” and not “exact” so as to enable any person skilled in the art to make
and use the invention. We leave it to the examiner to perform his own evaluation and
make a rejection as deemed appropriate.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007